Arvind Mishra @ Sonu Mishra Aged About 32 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1774 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Arvind Mishra @ Sonu Mishra Aged About 32 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 11 March, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                             2026:JHHC:6424




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         B.A. No. 1442 of 2026

     Arvind Mishra @ Sonu Mishra aged about 32 years Son of Late
     Pankaj Mishra Resident of Village- Partappur, Post Office- Meharma,
     Police Station-Meharma, District-Godda, Jharkhand
                                                   ...     ...      Petitioner
                             Versus
     The State of Jharkhand               ...        ... Opposite Party
                             ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Advocate

---

04/11.03.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.12.2023 in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No. 142 of 2023, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Godda.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the doctor has been examined in the trial and the doctor has stated that the mother of the petitioner had expired due to injury caused in her hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the evidence of the doctor, there is no likelihood of conviction of the petitioner. He has also submitted that till today three witnesses have been examined, out of six prosecution witnesses.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the post mortem report reveals that there was several injuries.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that a bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. 7766 of 2024 vide order dated 29.11.2024, but none of the learned

2026:JHHC:6424

counsel for the parties have pointed out this fact to the court during the course of hearing. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits and the trial is in progress. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. This bail application is accordingly rejected.

7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses so that the trial is taken to a logical end.

8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through 'FAX/E-mail'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 11.03.2026 Rakesh/-

Uploaded on:-11.03.2026